I care passionately about feminism, and your text poignantly illustrates why feminism is vitally important today. Fi however is not the best party to vote for if one cares about women.

I do not believe that the socialism implicit in Fi's platform is beneficial to women. Quite simply, I believe that most of the time, people can and should be trusted to make their own decisions. I do not believe that the government can possibly know what is best for everyone. A one-size-fits-all approach is heavy-handed and oppressive, and hurts more people than it helps. Treat people like children, and they will behave like children -- this applies to both men and women.

Apart from that, I object to Fi's proposed changes to labor policy, and believe that these changes would hurt women more than help them -- particularly women who run small businesses, and women who want to be able to have flexible working hours.

Further, Fi's views on science are ideologically motivated. This threatens the scientific process, the role of women scientists, and the innovation and competitiveness that have made Sweden a world leader in research and technology.

Lastly, Fi's proposed restrictions on free speech are a threat to the open, democratic society in which women play an increasingly vital role.

Fi supports paternalistic gender quotas in hiring, politically motivated censorship of speech & corruption of science, government decrees on how families should live and work, and additional burdens on business that would disproportionately hurt women. Fi is the embodiment of the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The party is a disaster for women.

Moreover, I find it offensive that the party has attempted to co-opt the good name of the feminist movement for its own narrow political ends. I fear that many self-identifying feminists are unwittingly supporting ideas they don't even agree with, just because the party has 'feminist' in its name. On the other side of the coin, the party's extremism has been a black eye for feminism and women's issues. Many erstwhile feminists and allies have surely been put off from taking feminism seriously, precisely because they have come to identify 'feminism' with the Fi party platform. Almost everything the party stands for is counterproductive to the advancement of women. Because I care about women, I will be voting for another party.

I hope that helps you to understand the reasons I hold the opinion I do. Let me know if you have any questions!

Hi Michael, you actually responded with a long and elaborate post, that I was going to go through and answer thouroughly, but then you followed up with a link to an antifeminist propaganda blog post that represent the antithesis of objectivity and interest of an intellectual discourse. I have no interest in spending time on long discussions with people who may sound like they want nuances, but in reality are just blindly pushing their agenda.

Hi Emil! Very well written argument with which I agree on many levels. I understand your reasoning for not responding to Micheal but I would be very interested to read your response. I consider myself a feminist but am also mildly liberal. The arguments Michael made are the same points which make me a little reluctant to vote for F!. Why you have chosen F! As opposed to Folk Partiet which is both liberal and feminist?

Hi again, Michael, so you realized the problem with the blog post reference, so let's do this :)

I can understand your desire to let people solve things themselves, and I would like for that to be a valid course of action as well. And as history has shown, liberal feminism actually works. However, it takes a reeeeeaaaallly long time. There is an inherent problem and inertia to changing the norms of a society. Since norms make out the social landscape in which we live, it is very difficult for most people to realize them, as it is basically means questioning the only reality they know. I have sometimes compared my feminist awakening to a sense of having been unplugged from the Matrix. Once you see it, you see it everywhere, and there's no going back.

What I like about F! in this sense is that a huge common thread in their political propositions is about education on gender and equality. Knowledge is the key to breaking norms, especially in young ages. Antifeminists of course claim that this is "indoctrination", failing to realize that we are in fact already indoctrinating our children as it is.

F! is not opposed to flexible working hours and part-time employment, but they do want to legislate about everyone having a right to full-time, in order to break the very damaging and structural labor situation we have today with women barely earning a living on part-time job(s).

Funny I have never found F! to be anything but extremely promoting of science and a lot more grounded in scientific methods than many other parties. What views are you referring to?

And what free speech restrictions have they suggested?

I can understand why some are uneasy about government actions to promote equality, but we have tried the alternative now and it doesn't work or it goes too slow. I don't want to wait over a hundred years for equal salaries, nor do I think we have to. The socialist nature of Sweden and the swedish model have put a lot of subsidies and governmental systems in place to create a democratic, free and equality-striving society and using the systems we already have in place to actively bridge the gender gap will not turn us into a communist state, nor will it take away any democratic rights. Au contraire.

As for kidnapping feminism, I don't think F! has ever proposed to be the sole bearers of feminism. I think they, as liberal feminists, believe that they have the best solutions for reaching the goals most feminists share, but as for proclaiming themselves as the monotheism of the fight against discrimination, that is an image created by mass media and anti feminist movements.

Meredith: As mentioned, I think we are in a place where we can and should use political tools to speed up the strive for equality, because it is evident that the opposite takes to long. The gender gap has decreased by 2% in the last 20 years and it's not accelerating, even though awareness is rising.

As I see it, liberal feminism is and has been about equal rights, which is of course a good thing, and has gone a long way to get us closer to equality through history. However, it will only get us so far. We have equal labor rights today, and has had for quite some time, yet the wage gap is still there. The power gap is still there. We have hade equal rights for parental leave for 40 years, but men still only take 1/4th of the days, and that only started once we flagged individual months.

Social and radical feminism is about equal opportunities. It proposes a change of norms, society and mindset so that we are not only legally equal, but consciously and subconsciously equal. And sometimes we have to live it to believe it, and if we have to use political means to encourage people to actually live it, then that is likely our most effective option.

1. Science.Fi seems to base many of its policies on a dubious article of faith: the radical and unfounded notion that gender is merely a construct of culture. This seems almost as silly to me as the religious notion that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. I studied biology, and so I come to this with a particular background; but anyway, I think most people these days accept the notion that we are the result of millions of years of evolution. The notion that our bodies exhibit gender-specific differences, but not our minds, is, frankly, untenable. And yet this is the idea that forms the basis of many of Fi’s policies. What if men and women just make different choices at least in part because of their different biology, and what if these choices result in measurable differences in, say, earnings, or representation in different job types? The very idea is rejected by Fi: all observable differences are due to problems that must be fixed. I just find this viewpoint out of touch and unreasonable. I think men and women can be different, and still have equal rights. I do not believe socialism is moral or effective, so I object also to the idea of trying to establish equal *outcomes*. I am philosophically inclined instead to support equality of *opportunity*, lifting up those who truly need help, and allowing people to make their own choices.

This brings me to another topic: the wage gap. The difference in average earnings between women and men is often touted as a great injustice that must be remedied through legislation. However, there is plenty of evidence that much of the gap is due to men’s willingness or desire to work longer hours. Control for the number of hours worked, and there is essentially no wage gap. Of course it’s a fair question whether men should be working themselves to death just to earn a bit more, but this could be addressed with nondiscriminatory policies limiting the maximum amount of overtime, say, rather than rules on how much total compensation women must earn with respect to men. My philosophical preference is to employ (inherently discriminatory) affirmative action policies only where absolutely necessary. Here, other policies would achieve fair, if not exactly equal, outcomes. So deliberate government discrimination is not necessary. Fi’s proposed policies often exhibit this pattern: faith in an idea (that all gender differences are the result of culture), combined with a passion for justice, leads to well-intentioned but ineffectual attempts to ‘correct’ these differences.

Repeated insistence on heavy-handed policies (no matter how well-meaning), on the basis of a misunderstanding of the world, or a misreading of the data, is a sign of either incompetence or dishonesty. Regardless of politics, I find neither of these characteristics appealing in potential leaders.

On a related topic, I support the idea of encouraging both boys and girls to consider jobs not traditionally associated with their sex; I just think the soft approach is much more morally acceptable. If more girls than boys want to be nurses, fine. If more boys than girls want to be construction workers, fine. Or if it’s the other way around in a few years, fine. Freedom is a cornerstone of Western civilization, and it’s not one we should whittle away cavalierly.

Here’s a link to one article about the wage gap. There's a lot of research into this topic if you are willing to go through it.http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/08/debunking-the-myth-of-a-mythical-gender-pay-gap/

2. Free speech.Fi’s position on free speech is cause for concern. Fi's expressed desire to restrict speech appears to be motivated by the belief that ideas, words, and depictions related to men and women should be made equivalent, and again, that any observable differences are due to failures of the state to educate, influence, and regulate. Most recently, my attention was brought to this issue by an op-ed in DN:http://www.dn.se/ledare/signerat/medierad-feministiskt-asiktsdirektiv/

I could write more about this, but Ms. Björkman puts it better than I could, so I will leave it at that.

—

I am a humanist and therefore also a feminist. Fi shares some of my general goals. I just think the party has terrible ideas about how to achieve them. And as I made clear, I don’t think it’s a reasonable goal to completely eliminate the differences between men and women; and policies based on this ideology are, in my view, counter-productive.

Wow, I won't be able to continue discussing at these lengths unfortunately, as time doesn't allow it. Also, you seem to be very firm in your beliefs so I think we are heading towards a dead end, but I'll comment shortly on your current posts :)

I don't think F! believe that gender differences are 100% cultural, I sure don't, but I do believe that in mankind today, cultural differences affect our behavior a lot more than biological. There are many psychological and sociological studies* supporting the thesis that individual differences are greater than gender differences, and I'm sure you are aware that there is not consensus in the academic world for either exclusively biological effect or exclusively cultural effect. The reason mainly is the lack of valid control group.

I also feel that it is a bit presumptuous, if not disrespectful, to claim that every instance of inequality in society is because that is what people are biologically predispositioned to want, when a large and ever growing group of women, non-whites and HBTQ proclaim a sense of being oppressed and/or discriminated against.

I'm curious though, when you started this discussion, you claimed to care passionately about feminism and that my text indicates why feminism is needed. The longer this discussion goes on however I get the sense that you are not really that passionate about feminism, or you simply have a very different view of what feminism is than I do. If differences in society are based on biological differences of our minds, then why should we encourage any change from what we have today? Or are you just trolling me? ;)

And what is the soft approach? It obviously doesn't work, or what do you mean by encouragement?

I never suggested that all observed gender differences were biological. Apologies if I wasn’t clear enough about this. :) I suspect that it depends on the difference, but that on average it’s about 60 percent culture and 40% biological. Many elaborate cultural artifacts are built on top of comparatively simple biological origins. Humans are complex creatures — no doubt about that.

I ascribe to the classic definition of feminism that is based on the idea that all people deserve the same rights. An ideology is simply is not recognizable to me as feminism though if it is inherently sexist. Feminism earns its name, and is vitally important, because women make up half of the population. I fear that the attention garnered by Fi will distract from the vital work of addressing the real concerns of women. But it’s also more than that. It’s about all disenfranchised or unprivileged people. I am concerned that by concentrating on perceived but arguably extinct (or at least comparatively minor) threats, Fi is distracting from other obstacles to equality and fairness.

I’m glad to agree to disagree. You seem reasonable and we’ve had a good discussion. It has been rewarding and satisfying.

Thanks for the link. The idea of ‘media violence’ appears to be that the mere public availability of certain ideas, texts, representations or images represents violence per se (to a group). I understand the reasoning, but here too, I favor an approach that protects individual freedom does not allow the state to silence people. That having been said, I believe it’s absolutely right to criticize those with whose ideas you disagree — and to do so publicly! Just as the best way to fight a lie is with the truth, the best way to combat disagreeable speech is with your own reasonable responses.

"I am concerned that by concentrating on perceived but arguably extinct (or at least comparatively minor) threats, Fi is distracting from other obstacles to equality and fairness."

What are those extinct/comparatively minor threats, I wonder? What are the "real concerns of women" that are not being adressed by Fi? And what obstacles to equality and fairness are not raised by Fi? F! drives an intersectional feminism, meaning that they want to illustrate how discrimination is seldom isolated to a single minority. Their candidates have a huge range of expertise and experiences of a lot of differenct minorities, with strong passion and proposals for the fight against racial, HBTQ- and functional discrimination.

I do somewhat agree that the election and everything surrounding F! has put a spotlight on the party that should ideally have been on the entire feminist movement. My own path towards feminism was not started by F! or Gudrun Schyman, as mass media tends to eagerly propose. It was started by my wife, and through her by a score of very skilled and brave feminist bloggers, writers, scientists and debaters. As I've stated in another blog post: F! is not representative of all the feminist movement, and maybe in the short run it will even create an increased animosity towards it. But in the long run, especially after F! enters parliament, I believe it will help the entire feminist movement.

I went back and re-read the Fi party platform this afternoon. This reminded me of twp points I neglected to mention before.

1. Fi wants to create a third legal gender. This is almost certainly well intentioned, and possibly also intended to allay any criticism that Fi is trans-exclusionary. I appreciate the motivation behind this, and the positive sentiment, but here too there are problems.

Who will belong to the third gender? On what basis will this judgement be made, and by whom? What rights and protections will members of the third gender have that they do not already have today? Could these rights not better be established and/or protected by enforcing existing anti-discrimination laws, and expanding these laws where necessary to include trans persons?

Also, much of the rest of Fi’s platform consists of gender-targeted policies. How would the creation of a third legal gender affect these policies? For example, will members of the third legal gender also be guaranteed representation in companies and government via quotas? What percentage?

It’s hard for me to imagine reasonable, fair, and consistent answers to these questions, but perhaps I am just not imaginative enough. :)

Honestly, I see more logic and fairness in the argument that gender should be completely eliminated as a legal distinction than the argument that a third (or fourth, etc.) gender should be created.

2. Fi makes no mention of how it would finance its proposed policy changes. Some of these changes would likely be very costly. It is either naive or irresponsible to propose expensive changes without opening explaining to the public how these policies would be paid for.

1. Anyone who feels they are not male or female and would rather identify themselves with a third legal sex, would be allowed to do so. As F! proposes, switching sex would be available for anyone.

What rights would they have? Well for one thing they would not have to cross a box in any public documentation with a sense that they do not exist. It would increase awareness to everyone about something that a lot of people are shockingly oblivious to and about which media feeds as with images of ridicule and mockery. We should enforce discrimination laws regardless, starting with including trans persons as a minority when it comes to hate speech. And yes, F! sees the logic in the gender elimination argument as well, which is why they are proposing an investigation into such a possibility. But a third gender is something that would benefit a lot of people, and harm noone.

2. F! has a financial report that discusses a lot of financial options. Obviously F! has no governmental monetary support (not until it gets more than 2,5% of votes in an election) and with people working on a volunteer basis it is not possible to create an entire budget proposal. IT has also been stated however that most of the major reforms that are proposed are long-term goals and should be implemented step by step. There are economists within F! as in all other parties, so I don't think we need to fear a financial disaster, even if F! got a majority of votes, which it will not. ;)

There’s a problem with the idea of letting anyone declare him or herself to belong to neither the male nor female gender. The system would be abused. Men who felt unfairly discriminated against by sexist hiring quotas or wage restrictions would simply legally change their gender.

I don’t fear a financial disaster, because I know Fi will earn at best a small minority of seats, and other cooler heads will prevail when it comes time to actually draft legislation. It’s simply that I cannot take a party seriously that doesn’t do its homework.

I’m not conservative in that way. There’s no shame in any gender identity. I would gladly change legal genders doing so were beneficial. Heck, I could even argue that it’s an act of solidarity with trans persons, or a form of civili disobedience to protest the law. Again, I don’t see this a proposal that is practical or beneficial.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were! But a lot of people are. And I understand why you wouldn't see it as practical or beneficial, because I've gotten the impression that you are not a trans person, and thus the current system is already practical and beneficial for people like you and me. But should we really be the ones to judge if it's beneficial or not?

Those who do not identify with either biological gender clearly face challenges that others do not. I simply wanted to illustrate that Fi’ proposed solution would be impractical. As I suggested earlier, laws that prohibit discrimination should be strengthened where necessary to explicitly outlaw discrimination on the basis of gender identity, etc. Where the law *does* discriminate, I would favor an in-depth analysis to determine if other non-discriminatory language might better achieve the same aims.

But my objection to this idea is actually also a matter of philosophy. I am against orthodoxy and blind adherence to ideology. As I see it, those who do not fit neatly into society’s assumed categories represent a threat to orthodoxy because they upset the assumptions most people unwittingly make. For example, people make unconscious assumptions about others based on their gender. Someone who does not clearly belong to one gender, or who identifies with a gender other than his or her biological or physical gender, makes it harder to make these assumptions. People get upset when they cannot feel safe in their prejudices and assumptions. I think this is a positive development! I do not think people should be making assumptions about others based on superficial markers, or identifiers of group membership. Creating even more categories and labels is a step in the wrong direction. Instead, we should focus on education, teaching tolerance of differences.

Sorry for the late publish of your comment. I want to publish only when I have time to comment, and I am extremely busy at work atm, so thanks for your patience.

But what you are really promoting with that standpoint is the abolishment of legal genders, is it not? Because how would people otherwise realize the truth? "Know this little Timmy, beacuse it's important: genders aren't binary. Except by law, of course." ;) I mean, I only realized the full intergender and transgender truth about a year ago. Heck, I still probably don't realize the full truth.

We already have the superficial markers and group memberships. A third gender would likely lessen the problem rather than increase it, even if it isn't the end all fix.